It doesn't need to exactly follow the conditions I used before as long as Github Actions can provide other good options or conditions. I just wanted to make sure the condition is reasonable.
2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 11:23, Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > lol how did you know I'm going to read this email Sean? > > When I manually identified the stale PRs, I used this conditions below: > > 1. Author's inactivity over a year. If the PRs were simply waiting for a > review, I excluded it from stale PR list. > 2. Ping one time and see if there are any updates within 3 days. > 3. If it meets both conditions above, they were considered as stale PRs. > > Yeah, I agree with it. But I think the conditions of stale PRs matter. > What kind of conditions and actions the Github Actions support, and which > of them do you plan to add? > > I didn't like to close and automate the stale PRs but I think it's time to > consider. But I think the conditions have to be pretty reasonable > so that we give a proper reason to the author and/or don't happen to close > some good and worthy PRs. > > > 2019년 12월 7일 (토) 오전 3:23, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > >> We used to not be able to close PRs directly, but now we can, so I assume >> this is as fine a way of doing so, if we want to. I don't think there's a >> policy against it or anything. >> Hyukjin how have you managed this one in the past? >> I don't mind it being automated if the idle time is long and it posts >> some friendly message about reopening if there is a material change in the >> proposed PR, the problem, or interest in merging it. >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nicholas Chammas < >> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> That's true, we do use Actions today. I wonder if Apache Infra allows >>> Actions to close PRs vs. just updating commit statuses. I only ask because >>> I remember permissions were an issue in the past when discussing tooling >>> like this. >>> >>> In any case, I'd be happy to submit a PR adding this in if there are no >>> concerns. We can hash out the details on the PR. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:08 AM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I think we can add Actions, right? they're used for the newer tests in >>>> Github? >>>> I'm OK closing PRs inactive for a 'long time', where that's maybe 6-12 >>>> months or something. It's standard practice and doesn't mean it can't be >>>> reopened. >>>> Often the related JIRA should be closed as well but we have done that >>>> separately with bulk-close in the past. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:24 PM Nicholas Chammas < >>>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It’s that topic again. 😄 >>>>> >>>>> We have almost 500 open PRs. A good chunk of them are more than a year >>>>> old. The oldest open PR dates to summer 2015. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Acreated-asc >>>>> >>>>> GitHub has an Action for closing stale PRs. >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/marketplace/actions/close-stale-issues >>>>> >>>>> What do folks think about deploying it? Does Apache Infra give us the >>>>> ability to even deploy a tool like this? >>>>> >>>>> Nick >>>>> >>>>
